Since posting yesterday’s review of antibacterial soap use, I have received two emails plus a comment asking for clarification on the use of hand sanitizer lotions and germ killing wipes. Specifically I was asked about the wipes now found in most grocery stores to clean off the handles of grocery carts before you use them and also about the pump dispensers filled with the germ killing hand lotion so common in office settings.
These products do not have the same issues as the antibiotic soaps. They kill germs directly, without the chance of creating the super bugs that many of us worry about. The lotions usually contain alcohol, the sanitizing wipes can contain alcohol or, like the product pictured here, bleach. If you are using these in your home or workplace, I would make sure that what you purchase does not contain an antibiotic like triclosan. Look at the ingredients and also at the label for things like “kills germs on contact”, etc. If you see an ingredient you don’t recognize, and can not verify it is not an antibiotic, feel free to ask about in a comment here. I’ll find out what it is.
Do you know any of the listed ingredients on the Clorox wipes label? Note how over 99% is “other ingredients”. It may be because Clorox claims those “other ingredients” are trade secrets. The law allows companies to use generic terms on labels if disclosing ingredients would “compromise” trade secrets. I guess the regulators have not considered that allowing ingredients to be hidden might “compromise” the ability of consumers to make informed purchasing decisions!
Even though I am showing a picture of the bleach wipes, let’s look specifically at pharmaceutical giant Pfizer’s product Purell as that is the biggest selling hand sanitizer. Purell’s active ingredient is 62% ethyl alcohol. Alcohol kills germs on contact, and then evaporates rapidly into the air. The fast evaporation and the common, long term, use of alcohol in health care, is why the products remind people of the hospital or doctor’s office. The “inactive” ingredients in Purell are: Water, Glycerin, Isopropyl Myristate, Propylene Glycol, Tocopheryl Acetate, Aminomethyl Propanol, Carbomer, Fragrance (parfum). I would be hesitant to use much of this, not because of the alcohol, but because of the secondary ingredients. Just for fun, and to show the importance of paying attention to what we put in or on our bodies, let’s look at each of the “inactive” ingredients separately. We will skip water!
Glycerin: In its pure chemical state, it is glycerol, which is an alcohol. In the impure state used in products like these it is called glycerin. It is a solvent that when added to water, softens the skin. Glycerin is “thought” to be very safe, even being used in many commercial food products.
Isopropyl myristate: This is used in personal hygiene products when good absorption through the skin is desired. It is also in products used to treat head lice. It does the job by dehydrating the lice and dissolving their waxy coating, allowing chemicals to penetrate and kill them.
Propylene Glycol: This is another alcohol, described as being used as a moisturizer, lubricant, and solvent. It is approved by the FDA for use in cosmetics and food. Interestingly, the FDA does not consider it safe enough to use in cat food. And to think I thought it was only used as antifreeze!
Tocopheryl Acetate: This is vitamin E, more specifically, its acetic acid salt.
Aminomethyl Propanol: A nitrogen based alcohol which mixes with water and other alcohols. It is used as an emulsifier in cosmetic lotions and creams. (Double click on “emulsifier”, or any other word, to try out the new Answer Tips plugin I am using.)
Carbomer: If I remember my chemistry correctly, technically a carbonmer is anything that has had 2 carbon atoms inserted into its molecular chain. As used here, it is a trade name for a thickener added to hand lotions.
Fragrance: This is one to watch out for in some products and I am working on another article specifically on this topic. “Fragrance” is a catch-all term for all the chemicals used to scent a product. It sounds harmless, but sometimes hides many dangerous compounds. Like on the Clorox label, the reason the law allows companies to avoid listing the ingredients in their fragrances is that they are considered trade secrets. It is sort of odd that Pfizer puts “parfum” in parenthesis after listing fragrance. Parfum is just the French word for perfume.
In summary, I don’t use these types of products very often although I have been known to clean the handle of a grocery cart or two. I don’t think they pose any huge danger and the idea that they provide some protection from common cold and flu viruses does have merit. Liquid hand sanitizers are almost universally used in hospital and newborn nursery settings. Many offices are also beginning to use these products as they do kill germs and help to prevent these cold germs and viruses from being transferred from your fingers when you use the copy machine, then rub your eyes, pick your n…, well you get the idea.
November 30th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
11 Comments |
Categories:
health
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/health/hand-sanitizer-safety/trackback/
It seems like every week we see another major news article on the dangers of antimicrobial soap use in the home. Just yesterday our local newspaper had a two page article that has been syndicated by the Washington Post. I have written about antibacterial soap use before, and this is just an update addressing a few questions I received in email a while back. Most of the information I have gathered on this is readily available on line. If you only have the time to follow one link to information on this subject, I would recommend the Beyond Pesticides fact sheet, available as a PDF file .
The first question was how regular soap works and why should we believe it does as good a job as antibacterial soap? Without getting too technical, soap is simply made up of a base and an acid and has two main purposes. Soap decreases the surface tension of water and adheres to dirt, oil, bacteria, viruses and the like. When you lather the soap, this all combines together and is easily washed down the drain. Antibacterial soap does not do this job any better than regular soap.
The second question was are germ killing products antibacterial and do they pose the same danger as antibacterial products? The simple answer to this is that germ killing products, (those with bleach or other disinfectants), do not contain antibiotics. They are different than antibiotics in that there is no evidence that I can find that they contribute to “super bug” problems like MRSA. Still, I am concerned enough about our exposure to harsh chemicals that I try to avoid the use of these products also.
The last question was why do so many people keep using antimicrobial soap even with all the publicity stating that we should not? I think there are several reasons for this, but first and foremost is effective marketing by the makers of “antibacterial” soap. People are understandably concerned about the health and safety of themselves and their families and easily believe the hype that products containing antibiotics are better. In reality, the opposite may be the case. The antibiotic used in all these products has been claimed by the EPA to be contaminated by dioxins. The dioxins are formed during the antibiotic manufacturing process so can not be avoided in the final product. Additionally when triclosan, the antibiotic used in these products, combines with chlorinated tap water, a super dioxin is formed.
Another reason is availability. A recent study concluded that approximately 75% of the liquid soaps on the market are antibacterial. Until recently some large retailers only carried this type of liquid soap. In a previous post, I showed the text of a letter to Costco asking them to discontinue selling antibacterial soap. I believe they must have had others write them also because Costco is now offering liquid soap that is antibiotic free.
There has been an explosion of triclosan antibiotic use in all kinds of products. Take a look at this list to see some of its uses. Another problem caused by the explosion of antibacterial products is environmental. The antibiotic used, triclosan, causes all kinds of problems when washed down the drain. Even when this drain water is treated at whitewater treatment plants, triclosan is not removed. It is highly toxic to algae and is thought to have detrimental endocrine effects on fish .
It is obvious to me from my reading that using antibiotic soap does not make you any safer from dangerous germs. In fact the opposite is likely true. The products themselves possibly pose health dangers to you and the environment. Plus, as more and more germs breed resistance to antibiotics, the risk from untreatable infections rises. I urge everyone again… Please do not use antibacterial soap.
November 29th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
9 Comments |
Categories:
health
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/health/antibacterial-soap-danger-still-a-hot-topic/trackback/
Because of my seeming inability to leave well enough alone and just concentrate on the business at hand, I have added a new feature to this site. Called Answer Tips, it allows you to click on any word in a post, comment, or anywhere else that is not already a link, and get a small pop-up box with a summary definition, etc. of the word. Just some unnecessary fun, the best kind!
Here are a few words I tried it on:
Plugin - This word, like some others is not up-to-date with its use on a blog.
Dirty Jobs - Some are current and surprisingly in-depth.
Bluefin - Some won’t always get you the most common usage.
youtube - It has the big websites covered.
techfun, myonlyphoto, willtaft - Unfortunately, it misses most of the superlative, smaller sites.
ThisSiteDoesNotExist.com - And, you can add a .com after anything and it will give you a “link”, even if the site does not exist. Whoops, that one DOES!
November 27th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
Leave a Comment |
Categories:
Will Taft . com
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/will-taft-com/new-wordpress-toy/trackback/
The Mule Mountain Trail #919 is quite a good climb. There are various routes to take that can alter the total miles hiked. Our hike organizer said the trail received its name during the local Indian War period when mules, pulling a howitzer, supposedly slipped off the trail and fell into the creek, ruining the soldiers’ gunpowder until it could be dried. We went to the top of Mt. Baldy and back, probably about 10 miles round trip. There is a lot of information about this hike online, so I won’t duplicate that. Here are a few pictures from our climb up out of the valley fog on October 31, 2007
.
One Little deciduous tree among the evergreens.
Maybe the ravine the mules fell into? 
Hikers on the trail cutting across the slope. 
Getting brighter, but we are still in the fog. 
Fall colors, Oregon style. 
Mature Madrone trees in the fog. 
On top of the fog! 
The fog starts to break up as we eat our lunch. 
Lunch near the top of Mt. Baldy. 
November 23rd, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
7 Comments |
Categories:
Hiking
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/hiking/mule-mountain-trail/trackback/
It has been a few months since I posted a topic to gather suggestions for my site in general or WordPress plugins, widgets, etc. Here is one from September that generated a good discussion. The latest additions here are the BlogCatalog widget and the Google Translate gadget, both in the sidebar. Don’t be bashful! I am always looking for something new to try or tinker with. Comment away! Thanks!
November 22nd, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
One Comment |
Categories:
Will Taft . com
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/will-taft-com/suggestions-for-this-site/trackback/
I Hope everyone celebrating this uniquely U.S. holiday has a safe, fun time with family and friends! Eat, drink, be merry, give thanks……… I have to go get cooking!
November 21st, 2007
Posted By:
|
One Comment |
Categories:
Will Taft . com
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/will-taft-com/happy-thanksgiving/trackback/
The latest version of WordPress, (2.3), has tags built in to it. Many people think this will prompt a move away from categories to tags. For me I am not sure how it will play out in the end. I may keep only a few broad categories, using tags to really index my posts. I really thing of tags and categories as two very separate things. One issue I will have to figure out is how eliminating some of my categories might affect my existing permalinks and post titles. The custom permalink structure I use is: /%category%/%postname%/. If I eliminate a category, I might cause big trouble for posts published previous to the category change. I might have to leave existing categories as is and not display them. Or I could not display all the existing categories, only the ones that make the cut to my streamlined approach incorporating tags. Opinions and ideas on this issue are welcome in the comments. Thanks!
To help make better use of tags in WordPress 2.3, I am using a plugin called Simple Tags which was the only one I could find advertised as written specifically for WordPress 2.3. Simple Tags is the successor to the popular Simple Tagging plugin that was written for earlier versions of WordPress. I like the way Simple Tags makes adding tags to a post before you publish….. simple. But there are a few issues with the plugin that do cause me headaches.
I had posted a comment on the Simple Tags author’s page about a bug that arises when using Simple Tags to change the name of tags. I had noticed a few tags on my posts that had an initial capital letter even though I had entered the tags all lower case. When I used the Simple Tags option to “rename” a tag, I could not get the change to lower case to stick. Several people saw that comment and emailed me asking if I ever figured it out. I did and following is the explanation.
Simple Tags does not care how you capitalize, (or not), your tags. But for some reason if you have a category with the same name as a tag, AND that category name is capitalized, then the tag with the same name will always be capitalized, no matter what you do in Simple Tags. I have no clue why, code wise, but I like my tags to have all lower case and I like my categories to have an initial capital. So, I either have to make sure that I have no categories that are also tags, (I don’t like that option), OR I need to make my categories lower case also. For now I have compromised and, as you can see in my sidebar, I changed only the categories names that are also tags to lower case. I have not changed anything else in my categories and won’t until I find out how that might affect my permalinks. There are a few other issues in Simple Tags that are problems for me, but it is the only plugin I could find so far that plays nicely enough with WordPress 2.3.
My biggest problem with the plugin is the related posts function. It simply does not work as it is supposed to. If you try to use this function of the plugin, be careful not to be imbibing of your beverage of choice at the same time. The posts Simple Tags picks as related are often so unrelated that, when you see the results, it can cause you to blow the aforementioned beverage out your nose and on to your keyboard! So I don’t use that function. That is too bad because, for some blogs, relating posts is a very important navigation tool for readers. SK has posted on the Simple Tags thread a way that he hacked it to make it better. But, I am not sure even he has it working 100% as it should and I have not been able to follow his explanation well enough to make it work for me.
Amaury, the author of the Simple Tags plugin is not too active on the plugin’s home page comment thread, but he does drop in occasionally and has indicted that he does plan another release to try and address some of the issues. I am sure the problem for him is the one common to most Word Press plugins. They require a lot of work and time to develop and maintain and there is very little, if any, compensation to be had for the effort. There are a few plugins that are meticulously developed and maintained where their author’s might earn back a little from their efforts. When I run across a plugin like that, I make a point to make a donation to help fund the effort. Perhaps the best example of this is the All In One SEO plugin by uberdose. AIOSEO is continuously updated, sometimes daily! And uberdose is on his comment threads everyday, making it a point to politely answer every question. He is a real first class supporter of his plugin. If you want some SEO love for your site, I suggest checking out his site. I was one of the earlier users of the plugin and one of the first contributors via PayPal. His support has been so great, that I think I am ready to make a second contribution!
Sometimes, when determining relationships between things, appearances are not always what they seem. On the issue of a related posts plugin, what I would really like is the following. First and foremost, I would want to have the ability to choose what posts to show as related. The plugin would provide me with a list of suggestions based on my tags and I would choose from this list which post titles to display as links to related posts. Let the plugin generate a list using whatever logic it can on the tags, then let me choose from that list the 3 or 4 posts I actually want shown as related. Seems pretty simple, but then what do I know about php and coding! Not much, or I would do it myself. Oh well……………
I did receive a suggestion to check out the In Series WordPress plugin for related posts functionality. I have not been able to see how that plugin can do it, and am thinking it can not, but if I do discover it is possible, I’ll post a comment here explaining how.
November 20th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
16 Comments |
Categories:
Blogging
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/blogging/simple-tags-wordpress-plugin/trackback/
Are organic turkeys worth the extra cost? Within reason, I think the answer is yes, but I have seen specialty, organically raised turkeys for sale online that give me pause. I guess the steep cost is partly the result of overnight shipping of fresh food, but still…. Take a look at this link to see what I mean. This company does sell out every holiday season, so there is a demand for these birds. Even though I am willing to pay more for an organic, free-range turkey, there are limits to our budget, so I choose to look locally for our holiday birds.
In an article yesterday, I discussed some of the advantages of organic turkey. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks to ethically produced, healthier turkeys is the higher cost. Why do organic turkeys cost so much more than conventionally produced birds?
The biggest reason is probably the amount of space needed to raise turkeys organically vs. conventionally on huge turkey farms. Take a look at the picture of the turkey farm in the middle of my post encouraging people to try organic turkey. Compare that to the picture at the top of this article. If an industrial turkey farm can produce 10 times the number of turkeys per given area of growing space, then they can sell these turkeys at a lower cost per pound. Because hormones are not fed to organic turkeys, they grow slower than conventionally produced birds, requiring more feed per pound of turkey. Here is an interesting article describing how one Australian turkey grower successfully made the switch from conventional to free range turkey raising. Farms such as that one can justify an increased cost for their birds, but be careful as not all turkey growers are as ethically responsible with the “free range” label. Unless you know the specifics of the farmer, buying organic can be a safer choice.
A smaller reason for the higher cost of organic turkeys is the demand factor. Supposedly, because only a small percentage of turkeys sold are organic, the economies of scale result in higher shipping and handling costs per bird. Another factor is that because they are still considered a “specialty item” by many groceries, they are priced at a higher markup than the huge freezer display of conventional turkeys.
I would be hesitant to pay the high cost of an online, organic, heritage variety turkey. I think my reluctance is simply that I can not justify the cost to our food budget. If money was not a factor at our Thanksgiving table, I might order one. This year I purchased a local, organic, free range turkey for $2.19 per pound. The store I bought it at had another nationally sold organic, free range, turkey for $1.99 per pound. I chose the local over the national, because I like to purchase local whenever possible and because the largest bird was a local one at just over 14 lbs. I have been able to get 15 or 16 lb organic or 18 to 20 lb free range in past years by ordering ahead of time. If I had needed a larger bird this year, I would have been out of luck at this store.
What I really did not like and what I think probably deters most people from buying an organic turkey, was the difference in price over the “broth injected” Butterballs and the like in the same case. The conventional turkeys were priced between 1.19 and 1.39 per lb. Another store was offering a brand of turkey I had not heard of at 19 cents per pound, (regular price 1.19), if you bought over $50.00 worth of groceries at the same time. A warehouse type grocery in town is advertising frozen turkeys at .89 cents per lb. So I pretty much paid double the price for an organic turkey.
I don’t think a much higher price can be justified for a free range bird, unless it is also organic, or you can verify the farming practices of the specific turkey grower. The USDA only requires that a turkey have access to outside air in order to be labeled free range.
I do think most of the higher price of organic turkeys can be justified by the higher cost of production. Some of the differential, however, is undoubtedly tied to the grocer’s thinking it is a specialty item that they can charge a higher markup on. Obviously if you are going to spend the extra money for an organic turkey, you need to believe you are getting something worth the extra price. In my case, I do. What do you think?
November 19th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
7 Comments |
Categories:
Organic Food
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/organic-food/some-reasons-why-organic-turkeys-cost-more/trackback/
Like many people, we only have whole roasted turkey 2 or 3 times a year and always between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day. As I am not a hunter, the lady on the left is safe this year, (at least from me). I do my hunting at the grocery store! For as long as I have been cooking the bird, (don’t ask, it’s a long time!), I have always looked for free-range turkeys. I discovered years ago that free range turkeys do indeed taste better. I suspect this is because of two main reasons. First, the birds are out walking around all day, getting exercise and developing leaner, less fatty meat. And second, being outside, they eat all kinds of vegetation, bugs, worms, etc. Just like the eggs of chickens that eat lots of natural food taste better, turkeys that have a more natural diet taste better.
One caveat to the above is that some free range turkeys do very little ranging at all. If a grower raises the kind of turkey that has an unnaturally large breast of white meat, they can be top heavy and have difficulty walking. “Free Range” is not a guarantee of a healthy, humanely raised turkey. Many large turkey producers just provide a little access to an outside environment for some of their birds so they can label them free range and get a higher price. Organic turkey growers avoid this deceptive practice. I think some organic turkey growers also stay away from the bird varieties that have the heavy breast problem. That, and the avoidance of hormones, might be one of the reasons organic turkeys are not easily available in weights over 14-16 pounds.
Although free-range birds have been available forever, in recent years growers have marketed the organic methods of raising these birds. Free range does not always mean organic, so read the label closely. Sometimes being certified organic is a costly process for small growers. If you purchase a locally grown turkey, (the best method), even if it does not say “organic”, take a close look at the label. A local grower might label their birds as free-range, with no hormones, antibiotics, or chemicals. I have asked small local produce growers in our area why they don’t market their produce as organic. The reply is usually that although they use organic growing methods, they can not afford the cost of the certification process. The same thing can be true with smaller meat and dairy farms.
If I plan far enough ahead of time, I prefer to get fresh turkeys. This year, I was late and had to get a frozen, organic, free-range bird. The main advantage of fresh birds is moisture preservation, but I have been able to get around this issue by following a couple of steps. When thawing a frozen bird, always leave it in its plastic wrapper until completely thawed. Then, try the reduced basting method of cooking. After preparing the bird for the oven, I completely cover it with a sealed tent of heavy duty foil. I leave the foil in place until the last 30 to 60 minutes of cooking. I do baste during this last bit of cooking time, but mainly for looks, to get a nice brown bird.
If you are wondering why you should get a free range turkey, all you have to do is learn how some conventional turkey farms operate. If you are a fan of Mike Rowe and his Dirty Jobs TV show, he had an episode on turkey farms. The crowded conditions on these farms are incredible. Workers have to regularly walk through and pile up sick, dying and dead birds for disposal. They are fed sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics to ward off infection. They are fed hormones to increase their growing speed and eventual size. Many of these turkeys are so sick and heavy they can’t walk. Turkey farms, like most huge, industrial farms are often big polluters of their local environment.
Organic, free range turkeys are healthier, taste better, don’t contain hormones and antibiotics, and have a less adverse impact on the environment. There are reasons some people say they can’t get a healthier turkey. Because growth hormones are not used, it can be difficult to find organically produced turkeys over 14-16 pounds. Also, organically produced turkeys do cost more, but they are well worth it.
I have followed up this article with another discussing why the healthy turkeys cost more, and why, within reason, they are well worth the extra price.
November 18th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
3 Comments |
Categories:
Organic Food
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/organic-food/try-organic-free-range-turkey-for-thanksgiving/trackback/
The huge meat processing and packaging companies, Hormel and Cargill, went before Congress in Washington, D.C. this week to defend the practice of adding carbon monoxide to the meat packaging process. The process retards the discoloration that can occur as packaged red meat sits in the meat case, unsold.
The idea of adding gases to meat packaging is not new. There are numerous U.S. patents, some many years old for various methods of doing this. The different methods use different gases to accomplish the same thing, keep meat looking pink and fresh, no matter how old it might be. The following quote is from a registered patent that is several years old.
"A process for preserving the color of red meat, which entails contacting the meat with an effective amount of an atmosphere selected from the group consisting of a noble gas, a mixture of noble gases and a mixture containing at least one noble gas and a carrier gas, the noble gas in the mixture with the carrier gas being selected from the group consisting of argon, neon, xenon and krypton and being present in said mixture in an amount of greater than about 10% by volume."
There is very little debate about the reasons the meat companies want to use gases to preserve meat color. The meat industry spends a lot of money re-wrapping fresh meat to preserve its appearance for consumers. The industry also loses a considerable sum every year because of discolored meat that must be discounted in order to sell or sometimes discarded. There is also almost no scientific debate about the safety of adding carbon monoxide or other gases to meat packaging. The process is generally accepted as safe for the consumer. Many scientists and food safety officials claim that meat appearance has never been an accurate indicator of whether red meat is good or not. They say consumers need to watch the dates on the meat packages and use that in their buying decisions. The consumer advocates that are being vocal on the issue seem to have the same concerns that they have about irradiated meat, namely that the meat should be labeled if it is treated by carbon monoxide. The meat companies are strongly opposed to the labeling idea. They feel that consumers will choose not to purchase meat treated with a gas commonly associated with the exhaust system of their cars, even if there is no health risk involved.
Interestingly, a search of the Hormel web site turns up no references to carbon monoxide. A search of the Cargill site does find 2 PDF’s and a web page that mention carbon dioxide, but none of these have anything to do with the packaging of meat. Rather they are related to emissions from their meat packing plants.
The discussion about whether the procedure should be allowed really appears to be falling into two categories. The first, as with most things in Congress, is political. The second involves the perceived deception of consumers.
The political debate is interesting, even though it is cloaked in the idea of food safety. The argument in Congress is between Hormel and Cargill who wants to use the carbon monoxide process and Kalsec Foods, a competitor that wants to use its own patented rosemary extract that colors red meat, making it appear to keep its pink color in the grocery store meat department. Each side has "employed" their state’s congressional representatives to fight for their cause. Re-election campaign contributions galore to the winning congressional representatives!
The deception debate is also heated. One congressman sat at a table piled with year old red meat that still had its "fresh" pink color intact. He stated that "the sole purpose" of the carbon monoxide packaging process is to deceive consumers, making them think that the red meat they are considering purchasing is fresher than it truly is. I think he even used the words "old" and "decayed". The problem with his argument is two-fold. He is a representative from the district that is home to the company wanting to use their own rosemary extract method. Also, in order for meat sellers to sell "old", "decaying", meat, they would have to falsify the dates on the packages of meat. As long as the date labeling system is kept intact as it is, using gas to preserve color should not result in "bad" meat being sold.
Except, perhaps, when you dine out, you can avoid this whole debate by purchasing meat more purposefully in the first place. Buy local if possible. Organic Beef is becoming more available, so consider that alternative. These options are often more expensive, but as more of us reduce our consumption of meat, our average budget for meat purchasing should not really increase.
There are meat preservation processes that might not require congressional hearings that I am more concerned about. Some companies are funding research to determine if injecting chemicals into meat can preserve its shelf life. One group of researchers are trying to determine if protection against pathogens that grow in aging meat might be achieved by packaging meat injected with potassium lactate and sodium diacetate. This is not a method to "preserve" meat in the traditional sense. It is a method that would be used solely to extend the shelf life of "fresh" meat.
With issues like this in the meat industry, I think we have limited choices. One choice is to reduce your meat consumption overall. Another is to buy only organically grown meat. I just bought an organic Thanksgiving turkey. It was 50% more expensive than the conventionally produced birds, but it was humanely raised in a "free range" environment and not injected with hormones or antibiotics. Please consider doing the same for your Thanksgiving dinner.
November 17th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
12 Comments |
Categories:
food safety
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/food-safety/carbon-monoxide-in-fresh-meat-packaging/trackback/
Today is National Memory Screening Day and November is National Alzheimer’s Disease Awareness Month. Alzheimer’s is a scary disease in addition to one the medical and science professions have not yet figured out. When I think about people loosing their memories, I think that they have lost who they truly are. Many diseases or disabilities handicap a person, under it all they are often the same relative, friend or co-worker you have always known. Alzheimer’s is different. When you know someone with the disease, you are reminded every day of what has been lost. Memories are at the very core of how we relate to people. It must be unimaginably difficult to care for an Alzheimer’s patient; especially if it is someone you have known and loved for years before they became ill.
I have read that there may be a hereditary aspect to the disease. That is comforting if you have a family history of relatives that live until a ripe old age and did not develop Alzheimer’s. I fall into this category, but I have also read enough about it to see that Alzheimer’s often does seem to strike out of the blue. So I think about it as I age and as people I know age. I read that 1 in 10 over 65 and almost 50% of those over 85 are afflicted. I am a person with ancestors that tend to live to a ripe old age. My maternal grandmother is one of 11 sisters, all either dying in their late 80’s to early 100’s or still alive at those ages. With few exceptions, in my biological family, everyone makes it to their very late 80’s and most well into their 90’s or more. Even though these relatives generally remain very healthy and active right up to the end, this makes me think about the challenges of very old age more than most people might.
What has interested me for a while is what environmental or dietary factors might contribute to or discourage the onset of Alzheimer’s. Many things have been written about factors such as the use of aluminum pots or the effect of certain foods. I don’t know if eating well can discourage Alzheimer’s, but who hasn’t heard of the possible benefits of the spice, curry? In the remaining 2-1/2 weeks of National Alzheimer’s Disease Awareness Month, I will take a look at diet and its relationship to Alzheimer’s and try to post some articles and links for people to read and form their own opinion. In the mean time, if you have any knowledge or links to research on the subject diet and Alzheimer’s, post a comment and I will incorporate that into what I discover.
In the meantime, encourage anyone you know that is of a certain age and has concerns about their memory to discuss it with their doctor. Screening has become much better recently. An early diagnosis has typically been seen as scary and unnecessary as nothing could be done to stem the advance of the disease. But I think this is starting to change. Not only is more research being done on ways to slow the disease, much more is being done to ease the transition for patients, loved ones and caregivers.
November 13th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
15 Comments |
Categories:
health
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/health/can-eating-well-prevent-alzheimers/trackback/
I have worried for several years about all the odd items that should be recycled, but normally just go in to the household trash. A recent post and its comments touched on this subject. Thinking we could do more to recycle all the alkaline batteries our family goes through each year, I started making phone calls and doing some research. What I discovered really surprised me!
Most of what you find on the internet supported my belief that, ideally all batteries should be recycled. But, it seems that most of what I found on the internet is incorrect and outdated information. It turns out that maybe we can be less concerned about throwing our alkaline batteries in the trash than I had thought.
My education started with a call to a local battery store asking them if I could save alkaline batteries and bring them in to them for recycling. They said “no” and that “recycling alkaline batteries was not necessary”. They do accept rechargeable batteries for recycling. I contacted a national chain, Batteries Plus, and was told the same thing.
Here is what I found on the Duracell Battery web site:
“Alkaline batteries can be safely disposed of with normal household waste. Due to concerns about mercury in the municipal solid waste stream, Duracell has voluntarily eliminated all of the added mercury from its alkaline batteries since 1993 — while maintaining the performance you demand. Our alkaline batteries are composed primarily of common metals — steel, zinc and manganese — and do not pose a health or environmental risk during normal use or disposal.”
The Energizer web site says: “Energizer recommends recycling rechargeable, but not alkaline batteries, even indicating that alkaline batteries can safely go to city incinerators.”
I even found a couple of sites that said that if you bring alkaline batteries to recycling centers or events, they are separated from the rechargeables and typically end up in the landfill or incinerator anyway.
Some organizations are quite blunt in their information. The Consumer Electronics Association Question and Answer Website says: “Alkaline batteries are not recyclable. They’ll just be thrown out in a landfill, or at the most a hazardous waste landfill.”
I found only one company that says they recycle alkaline batteries, but I saw another web site that mentioned this same company and said they store most of their collected alkaline batteries in underground concrete bunkers, waiting for the day when the materials in them can be recovered with more cost effective methods.
In summary, because alkaline batteries no longer contain mercury and because of the small amount of recoverable metals in them, they are not typically recycled. Some claims are made that using regular alkaline batteries is actually better environmentally than using rechargeables. I have trouble with this claim, but the reasoning behind it is this. Rechargeable batteries can contain mercury, cadmium, lead, and lithium. There are environmental impacts associated with the manufacture of rechargeable batteries. Many rechargeable batteries do end up being tossed into the regular trash by people who are either unaware that they should be recycled, or feel it is just too much trouble to do so.
It appears the reality is this… Alkaline batteries do not contain as many toxic components as I had thought. They do, however contain metals like nickel, cobalt, zinc, manganese, and silver. At this time there are no real cost effective methods available to recover these metals. In addition, many claims are made that these common metals pose no environmental threat when disposed of with normal household trash.
I think it might take a while for me to get used to this reality. I would still be worried if your community uses an incinerator to dispose of trash as the metals from the batteries might end up in the air. I do think I will be able to feel less guilty when I do toss out expended alkaline batteries in our trash which goes to a landfill. I will continue to make sure any rechargeable batteries or car batteries we use up get recycled, but I may have to revise my thinking and get off my high horse when it comes to alkaline batteries.
Let me know what you think and feel free to include links to information I might have missed. Recycling is an important and visible issue and we need to make sure we have our facts right!
November 9th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
13 Comments |
Categories:
Environment
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/environment/there-may-be-no-need-to-recycle-alkaline-batteries/trackback/
I am nursing a very sore shoulder from a hockey game so I have not had, and probably won’t have for a couple of days, the patience to research and write a longer article. So here is a link I had saved of a BBC news piece. Take a look and feel free to post a “duh” comment below.
Being fair to the researchers and the BBC, though, I am glad to see a big news organization so prominently display the obvious. Now I would really like to see a research study get to the bottom of why organic food commands such a premium price. If the U.S. government is going to continue to subsidize food producers, I sure wish they would direct some of those subsidies specifically to certified organic growers.
November 6th, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
9 Comments |
Categories:
Organic Food, health
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/organic-food/organic-food-is-healthier/trackback/
Or not…. I heard a radio blurb that a recent study found that people that take an average of 17 different vitamin and supplement pills a day have fewer health problems than those who take only a multiple vitamin. The big supplement takers had far lower rates of diabetes, cancer, heart attacks and strokes.
If such a study really exists, it immediately raises a red flag over something that I don’t really believe can be 100% accounted for. How can the researchers tell for sure that there is not something other than the main variable influencing the results? I think this is one of the reasons that we see so many contradictory results and interpretations when health studies are done. Remember the coffee is good for you, coffee is bad for you, coffee is good for you, and so on studies?
In this case, I would immediately suspect that people who take large numbers of supplements may be more focused on their health that those who just pop a multiple vitamin every morning. They may do everything from eating more fruits and vegetables to avoiding smoky bars and restaurants.
On the other hand, if the researchers in this study really were successful in accounting for all outside variables, and the results can be reproduced, there may be something to it. In that case, I would certainly want to know which 17 supplements the healthier group was taking!
If the results of this study hold up to further scrutiny, it may just result in another reason wealthier people living longer and healthier lives since only wealthy people could ever afford to take 17 different supplements every day. It is already known that, because of things like greater awareness of healthy lifestyle and diet choices, and better access to health-care, as financial status and education rise, people become healthier.
When I looked online for this specific “study”, I could not find it. I think I heard the original study cited by commentator Paul Harvey. As he is well known for pedaling vitamin supplements, maybe there is some doubt to be cast upon his “news” story?
I do know there is a researcher at the University of California that believes his lab has discovered a combination of vitamins, amino acids, and other supplements that can extend lifespan. They have even formed a company to sell their product. The problem is that, because of the long time frames involved in studying life extension, it is very difficult to prove if their product really does what is claimed. The pills they sell are also very expensive and out of the reach of most people.
November 2nd, 2007
Posted By:
Will |
5 Comments |
Categories:
health
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/health/taking-vitamins-and-supplements-reduces-health-problems/trackback/
6782907113059542138 
